How do they justify the fact that jesus is a clones from religions predating the bible?

The bible is the oldest book, not the oldest slab of tablet. Before there were books... there was stone carvings.

The lack of empirical evidence still stands. It doesn't matter how you interpret anything said in this movie, there is still no empirical evidence to support the claim.

There is however, empirical evidence that disproves "the son of god."

K, thanks.

BTW, I was raised in catholic school and went to church every Sunday for 13 years. Since I was about 5 years old, I could tell that the entire argument for why god exists boiled down to "because I said so." At this time I realized my parents would tell me no to things I would ask to do. Like sleep over at a friends house. I'd ask why, and they would tell me the same thing "Because I said so."

At this point in time I realized that there was no reason they were saying no. They just didn't want to drive me somewhere. The lack of empirical evidence proved my theory correct.

Same logic applies to every other aspect of life. You don't believe something unless you can prove it. You can't prove god, but you can disprove the bible. The bible is the "word of god" so by disproving the bible you are thereby disproving god.

Only people who are unintelligent can't grasp this conundrum. These are the same people that do what they are told, instead of deciding what is best. I.E. Slaves to a book.

How do they justify the fact that jesus is a clones from religions predating the bible?

The bible is the oldest book, not the oldest slab of tablet. Before there were books... there was stone carvings.

The lack of empirical evidence still stands. It doesn't matter how you interpret anything said in this movie, there is still no empirical evidence to support the claim.

There is however, empirical evidence that disproves "the son of god."

K, thanks.

BTW, I was raised in catholic school and went to church every Sunday for 13 years. Since I was about 5 years old, I could tell that the entire argument for why god exists boiled down to "because I said so." At this time I realized my parents would tell me no to things I would ask to do. Like sleep over at a friends house. I'd ask why, and they would tell me the same thing "Because I said so."

At this point in time I realized that there was no reason they were saying no. They just didn't want to drive me somewhere. The lack of empirical evidence proved my theory correct.

Same logic applies to every other aspect of life. You don't believe something unless you can prove it. You can't prove god, but you can disprove the bible. The bible is the "word of god" so by disproving the bible you are thereby disproving god.

Only people who are unintelligent can't grasp this conundrum. These are the same people that do what they are told, instead of deciding what is best. I.E. Slaves to a book.

You're not the only one who has realized what you say you have realized, it's just that most of us don't read and/or respond to posts by Leonardo and/or Darth.

How do they justify the fact that jesus is a clones from religions predating the bible?

The bible is the oldest book, not the oldest slab of tablet. Before there were books... there was stone carvings.

The lack of empirical evidence still stands. It doesn't matter how you interpret anything said in this movie, there is still no empirical evidence to support the claim.

There is however, empirical evidence that disproves "the son of god."

K, thanks.

BTW, I was raised in catholic school and went to church every Sunday for 13 years. Since I was about 5 years old, I could tell that the entire argument for why god exists boiled down to "because I said so." At this time I realized my parents would tell me no to things I would ask to do. Like sleep over at a friends house. I'd ask why, and they would tell me the same thing "Because I said so."

At this point in time I realized that there was no reason they were saying no. They just didn't want to drive me somewhere. The lack of empirical evidence proved my theory correct.

Same logic applies to every other aspect of life. You don't believe something unless you can prove it. You can't prove god, but you can disprove the bible. The bible is the "word of god" so by disproving the bible you are thereby disproving god.

Only people who are unintelligent can't grasp this conundrum. These are the same people that do what they are told, instead of deciding what is best. I.E. Slaves to a book.

You are not the only one who has not realized this realization that you think you have realized and have not realized.

It's just that most of us don't reply to posts by BlueAngel or Sanjay.

I watched the first 10min video there and decided not to watch the rest due to time constraints and the fact that the first part seems to have flaws. The initial question asked, 'Was christianity created for social control?' I waited patiently for the answer only to be disappointed to fine the video purely skirted around point at hand. Or was the answer- listen to the word of god, not the word of man? Surely that means there never ever can be a logical arguement made against god - by man! So before I even waste my time watching the further videos I know this isn't an open-minded debate but more of a, 'god is almighty - get used to it' brainwashing video.

I'll just lay my cards down here, I'm an atheist. I was brought up catholic but around the time I realised santa claus didn't exist, god soon followed. My main point to you (and other theists I debate with) is how can there be so many faiths, with each believing they are the 1 truth faith yet only 1 can be right logically (if any)? That was probably the main reason I stopped believing. How do you explain this?

The Refutation of Zeitgeist is very poorly done by a group of half-educated, doctrinally errant protestants (sound like Southern Baptists to me).

However, the Refutation does make a few needed points countering the utterly absurd and ridiculous claims of Zeitgeist itself.

I wish there were a more erudite refutation of Zeitgeist, because the net needs it badly. Unfortunately, until that arrives we will simply have to search for nuggets of gold in the Refutation. There are a few.

The Refutation of Zeitgeist is very poorly done by a group of half-educated, doctrinally errant protestants (sound like Southern Baptists to me).

However, the Refutation does make a few needed points countering the utterly absurd and ridiculous claims of Zeitgeist itself.

I wish there were a more erudite refutation of Zeitgeist, because the net needs it badly. Unfortunately, until that arrives we will simply have to search for nuggets of gold in the Refutation. There are a few.

There was nothing wrong with Zeitgeist. They stated the FACTS about religion. Something all religious people ignore completely. It went on to show the history of the US and how things weren't at all what they seemed. It covered the fallacy with the FED... which IS true. The only thing that was not true/bogus was the end, which was more of a prediction rather than being a true position for argument.

All in all, Zeitgeist two is out. It covers different things in a plan to "fix" it all. Haven't watched it yet but I'm sure it's chock full of novel ideas.

All in all, Zeitgeist two is out. It covers different things in a plan to "fix" it all. Haven't watched it yet but I'm sure it's chock full of novel ideas.

As I remember, Zeitgeist Addedum (the official name of Zeitgeist 2) is really an addendum as its name implies. It ads some information that was not included in the first film rather than correcting some errors that may have slipped in.

Anyway, this attempt to "refute" Zeitgeist is quite pathetic and filled with conjecture. It's reminiscent of the pseudo-scientific methods used by Creationists (who probably have the same target audience).